The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of public advertisement for allotment of plots and the timing of the application for plots in accordance with the applicable Rules.

1. The petitioners were owners of land measuring 57 kanals 10 marlas situated on the Pakhowal Road adjoining Canal Rest House, Ludhiana. The said land was acquired in March, 1975 by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust (for short 'the Trust') for implementing 8.4 acres scheme for residential purposes. The claim of the petitioners in the present writ petition is for issuance of writ of mandamus for allotment of 5 plots to the petitioners as local displaced person, as per their entitlement in terms of the Ludhiana Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1964 (for short 'the 1964 Rules') applicable at the time of acquisition. The petitioners claim that they are 'local displaced person' within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the 1964 Rules. The said Rules contemplate that any person, whose land has been acquired, would be a local displaced person and the Trust shall fix a concessional price at which land comprised under the scheme will be sold to every individual and local displaced person and that not more than one plot of land when demarcated into plots shall be sold to a local displaced person keeping in view the land acquired. It is also averred that in terms of the said Rules, the respondents were required to invite applications from the local displaced persons for allotment of a plot to every individual land holder, but the Trust never issued any such notice or letter inviting applications. It is also averred that the Rules framed by the State under Section 73 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for short 'the Act') such as Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975 (for short 'the 1975 Rules') do not repeal the Ludhiana Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1964 and such Rules being prospective are applicable to the land acquired after 18.09.1975. It is also pointed out that the Punjab Government framed Punjab Town Improvement (Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 (for short 'the 1983 Rules') repealing 1975 Rules, but 1964 Rules were not repealed even at that stage. It is pointed out that the condition in the 1983 Rules that local displaced person having a joint khata being co-sharers shall be allotted only one plot is not tenable. It is also pointed out that such condition was set aside by the Full Bench of this Court in a judgment rendered in 2011(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 915 : CWP No. 2575 of 2009 titled 'Jarnail Singh & others v. State of Punjab & others' decided on 01.10.2010. Thus, it is contended that the petitioners are entitled to 5 plots, being co-sharers in the land acquired, as local displaced persons.

2. It is also come on record that the petitioners made a request for allotment of plots as local displaced persons on 17.08.1988 (AnnexureP-3). A perusal of the record further shows that vide communication dated 19.01.1989 (Annexure P-4), the petitioners were offered 5 flats in the 8.4 Acre Development Scheme, as local displaced persons, but such offer was not accepted by the petitioners and they sought independent plots for each of the co-sharers. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a writ petition bearing CWP No. 13980 of 1994 before this Court, which was disposed of with a direction to decide the representation of the petitioners by passing a speaking order on 30.09.1994. When the said order was not complied with, the petitioners filed a contempt petition bearing COCP No. 991 of 1995. In the said contempt petition, while discharging rule on 13.02.1997, it was noticed that the Trust vide letter dated 09.08.1994 communicated to the State that the petitioners are entitled to 5 plots in view of their land acquired and that the Trust was directed to allot plots accordingly. In appeal against the said order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the letter dated 19.08.1994 could not be taken as a decision of the Trust to allot one plot to each of the joint holder in the khata and the findings recorded in the contempt petition are without any basis. It was held that